UNION OF INDIA Vs. S P VOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties, Shri Patel for the petitioner and Shri Trivedi for the respondent original Applicant.

(2.) The respondent original applicant retired from Railway on attaining the age of superannuation. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (for short "the Tribunal), by way of OA NO.503 of 1999 with a limited grievance that his service from 10.2.1951 to 20.1.1954 was not considered for the purpose of revision/fixation of his seniority and the consequential benefits. The learned Tribunal by its impugned Judgment and order dated 27.11.1997 allowed the Application and held that the applicant is entitled to the relief prayed for by him and accordingly directed the respondents present petitioners to consider the past service of the applicant from 10.2.1951 onwards not only for the purpose of pension but also for the purpose of re-fixation/revision of seniority in the seniority unit to which he belongs. This is challenged in this petition by the petitioners.

(3.) Learned Counsel Shri Mukesh Patel for the petitioners submitted that learned Tribunal has committed grave error in allowing the application of the respondent applicant. He submitted that by granting relief in favour of the applicant the learned Tribunal did not consider the fact that it may affect his senior. There is no substance in this submission. From the impugned Judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal it is clear that only notional benefits were given. The relief, which is granted in favour of the applicant, was to consider his past service from 10.2.1951 onwards not only for the purpose of pension, but also for the purpose of re-fixation/revision of seniority. It is unfortunate that though the petition was to be heard in 1999, the same could not be heard for some or the other reasons. Be that as it may.